Jump to content
Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'narvik.'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • War History Online
    • Tell Us!
    • Question Corner
    • News
  • History Corner
    • Beginning of time - First World War
    • First World War (1914-1918)
    • Second World War (1939 - 1945)
    • After World War II
    • My Family
    • Others
  • Other Stuff
    • Battlefields, Monuments & Museums
    • Military Vehicles & Aviation
    • Mess Hall (Off Topic)
    • Gaming Corner
    • Books / Films / TV / Documentaries


  • Community Calendar


  • Articles

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



About Me

Found 1 result

  1. Other recent - and popular! - threads have discussed German mistakes during WW2, and fairly high on the list have been the failure to annihilate the BEF at Dunkirk, and the unwise decision to switch from hammering airfields and RADAR stations to bombig towns (specifically London) There has ben - or so it seemed to me! - an easy, and almost unanimous assumption that if the Germans had continued to target the RAF then (1) they'd have won and (2) the invasion that was supposed to follow would have been a success., I strongly disagree. In 1940, the UK, tired from a string of defeats, and having lost pretty much ALL our allies, was desperate for a success, and the Battle of Britain provided one. So, the government of the day "Bigged it up" to the maximum.Germany had lost almost the entirety of its (anyway rather small) inshore fleet in action against the RN off of Narvik, meaning that the "invasion fleet" - composed not of purpose built landing craft, but merely conscripted barges from European inland waterways would have to cross 20+ miles of open sea, totally unescorted. -and having deposited their invading troops in England, would need to return to collect a second wave and supplies. This is the kind of exercise that has been repeatedly wargamed since the end of WW2, including by teams of senior officers who'd served both Germany and the UK during the war. Same result time after time. Total disaster for the invaders. Which is WHY, in 1944, after over a YEAR of preparations, the establishment of vast stockpiles of gear, with th enemy utterly confused as to where and when the invasion would come, the Allies were still VERY nervous as to the outcome.Quite a number of people down the last 1,000 years have considered the idea of invading England. Since William of Normany's attempt in 1066... nobody has succeeded. Not Phillip of Spain with his Armada, Not Napoleon. Getting from one side of the Channel to the other still in a condition to fight is NOT easy. William might be considered to have cheated: He convinced his Viking Allies to make a simutaneous invasion on the EAST coast at Stamford Bridge. Harold's army took on one invasion, defeated it, then marched South to meet William. Any other opinions? Would Hitler have succeeded? Ought I to have made this post into a Poll?!
  • Create New...